2015 was hottest year on record, say some scientists

[craigt3365]

Not correct. You are looking at the end point ignoring 100 years of research and evidence that reached a final conclusion. The points you mentioned are understood and measured and researched in detail and ruled out for no other reason than they simply do not fit.

It is unimportant a Model can forecast. What is essential is that a Model can hind-cast. If it is not able to hind-cast it is not able to forecast.

I think you need another shot at explaining this because, as it stands, it appears to be the dumbest thing you have said to date. And that is quite an achievement.

Be nice and abide by forum rules:

Posting Content & General Conduct

7) You will respect fellow members and post in a civil manner. No personal attacks, hateful or insulting towards other members, (flaming) Stalking of members on either the forum or via PM will not be allowed.

[up2u2]

The point is that the entire trillion-dollar climate scare has been built upon computer models and their forecasts for the future of Earth's climate system.

These models have been shown, over a period of two decades, to be utterly useless in their predictive ability. Climate modelling represents the zenith of the GIGO principle - garbage in, garbage out.

When you get misinformation from Climate Denier websites outside of the scientific field funded by fossil fuel polluters it is easily to be misled. Scientific modelling on GW is proving to be extremely accurate. If anything it tends to take a more conservative approach and underestimate the amount of GW. It is actually very accurate information in and accurate modelling out.

GW is a multi multi trillion dollar business globally. Companies investing in clean energy technologies will be bigger than any fossil fuel polluting corporation. Nothing wrong with that.

[canuckamuck]

The point is that the entire trillion-dollar climate scare has been built upon computer models and their forecasts for the future of Earth's climate system.

These models have been shown, over a period of two decades, to be utterly useless in their predictive ability. Climate modelling represents the zenith of the GIGO principle - garbage in, garbage out.

When you get misinformation from Climate Denier websites outside of the scientific field funded by fossil fuel polluters it is easily to be misled. Scientific modelling on GW is proving to be extremely accurate. If anything it tends to take a more conservative approach and underestimate the amount of GW. It is actually very accurate information in and accurate modelling out.

GW is a multi multi trillion dollar business globally. Companies investing in clean energy technologies will be bigger than any fossil fuel polluting corporation. Nothing wrong with that.

First off I will apologize for my earlier post which was a bit harsh and apparently premature.

Now I must ask you how you can look at a chart like the one Rick has just posted; which clearly shows the climate models consistently predicted warming to have been much greater than we see in reality, and then make the comment that the models have been too conservative?

That is just wilfully ignoring hard evidence in favour of an agenda. How can anyone take you seriously now?

[derator01]

A post with no link back to it's source has been removed from view. Per forum rules:

9) You will not post inflammatory messages on the forum, or attempt to disrupt discussions to upset its participants, or trolling. Trolling can be defined as the act of purposefully antagonizing other people on the internet by posting controversial, inflammatory, irrelevant or off-topic messages with the primary intent of provoking other users into an emotional response or to generally disrupt normal on-topic discussion.

14) You will not post any copyrighted material except as fair use laws apply (as in the case of news articles). Please only post a link, the headline and the first three sentences.

[up2u2]

The point is that the entire trillion-dollar climate scare has been built upon computer models and their forecasts for the future of Earth's climate system.

These models have been shown, over a period of two decades, to be utterly useless in their predictive ability. Climate modelling represents the zenith of the GIGO principle - garbage in, garbage out.

When you get misinformation from Climate Denier websites outside of the scientific field funded by fossil fuel polluters it is easily to be misled. Scientific modelling on GW is proving to be extremely accurate. If anything it tends to take a more conservative approach and underestimate the amount of GW. It is actually very accurate information in and accurate modelling out.

GW is a multi multi trillion dollar business globally. Companies investing in clean energy technologies will be bigger than any fossil fuel polluting corporation. Nothing wrong with that.

First off I will apologize for my earlier post which was a bit harsh and apparently premature.

Now I must ask you how you can look at a chart like the one Rick has just posted; which clearly shows the climate models consistently predicted warming to have been much greater than we see in reality, and then make the comment that the models have been too conservative?

That is just wilfully ignoring hard evidence in favour of an agenda. How can anyone take you seriously now?

No need for an apology canuck. All good. The chart that was posted was inaccurate. The baseline had been shifted to 1983. It makes the Models look to track inaccurately. When you adjust the baseline to its correct position the Models track very accurately. It is a very very very old chart that was discredited many years ago.

Also the lowest line is unadjusted satellite data from University Alabama Huntsville measuring the Lower Troposphere . Inherently inaccurate in surface temperature recording. We don't live in the lower troposphere.

[thaibeachlovers]

Well put. Humans are having a massive impact on the environment. Deforestation and burning of fossil fuels are 2 biggies. I remember flying over the Andes a few years ago and seeing in amazement how much of the mountainsides in these remote regions had been totally cleared. Unreal.

Interesting article:

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/aug/12/humans-have-already-used-up-2015s-supply-of-earths-resources-analysis

True. Humans are a pestilential plague on the planet, but it hasn't been proven they cause climate change.

The only thing that would make a real difference would be to eliminate all humans- but how would that be accomplished? It is my belief that Gaia has decided to remove the human parasites by various means. The Zika virus would seem to be a start in that direction. Otherwise, humans will multiply to the point that there are no other significant life forms on the planet and we survive by eating seaweed as all the land is occupied by people and all the fish have been eaten or died of pollution .

Humans indirectly cause Climate Change. By burning fossil fuels they emit CO₂ into the atmosphere. Excess CO₂ greenhouse gas causes the Earth to heat up. As the Earth warms Climates Shift, Polar Caps melt, sea levels rise, extreme weather events develop. Pretty simple stuff. That basic science has been around for some 120 years.

The primal Greek goddess of earth is the cause. Well there you go.

No intention of getting into detail, but it's actually the sun that heats the planet, not CO2. It has not been proven that the rise in CO2 caused by mankind has caused climate change as there is a case to be made that increased CO2 is caused by rising heat levels caused by increasing sun heating, ergo rising CO2 levels are caused by the sun and not humans. There is far more CO2 and methane trapped in the surface than ever humans produced- it is released by rising temperatures.

[stevenl]

Well put. Humans are having a massive impact on the environment. Deforestation and burning of fossil fuels are 2 biggies. I remember flying over the Andes a few years ago and seeing in amazement how much of the mountainsides in these remote regions had been totally cleared. Unreal.

Interesting article:

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/aug/12/humans-have-already-used-up-2015s-supply-of-earths-resources-analysis

True. Humans are a pestilential plague on the planet, but it hasn't been proven they cause climate change.

The only thing that would make a real difference would be to eliminate all humans- but how would that be accomplished? It is my belief that Gaia has decided to remove the human parasites by various means. The Zika virus would seem to be a start in that direction. Otherwise, humans will multiply to the point that there are no other significant life forms on the planet and we survive by eating seaweed as all the land is occupied by people and all the fish have been eaten or died of pollution .

Humans indirectly cause Climate Change. By burning fossil fuels they emit CO₂ into the atmosphere. Excess CO₂ greenhouse gas causes the Earth to heat up. As the Earth warms Climates Shift, Polar Caps melt, sea levels rise, extreme weather events develop. Pretty simple stuff. That basic science has been around for some 120 years.

The primal Greek goddess of earth is the cause. Well there you go.

No intention of getting into detail, but it's actually the sun that heats the planet, not CO2. It has not been proven that the rise in CO2 caused by mankind has caused climate change as there is a case to be made that increased CO2 is caused by rising heat levels caused by increasing sun heating, ergo rising CO2 levels are caused by the sun and not humans. There is far more CO2 and methane trapped in the surface than ever humans produced- it is released by rising temperatures.

Of course you don't get into detail, since the climate scientists, the experts, are all convinced men is responsible.

[thaibeachlovers]

Why? I quite frankly don't care what the weather is doing where you are located. Rain or shine makes not one bit of difference to me.

All I know for certain is the weather will change as it has done for millions of years and there is not one blessed thing you or I can do about it.

Again confusing weather with GW / CC

No, he's not. The planet will cool or get hotter, and there's nothing that all the king's horses and all the king's men can do about it- or you, or I, or the "scientists" wobbling on that we face catastrophe unless we drive hybrid cars and pay lots of tax on cows farting. However, flying thousands of scientists to exotic locations around the world to produce a load of pointless hot air is OK, as they don't produce "real" CO2, as opposed to the stuff we produce, so we should go back to living in caves and walking.

555555555555555555

He is actually. Weather is just weather. Of course man can reverse the effects of polluting the atmosphere with CO₂. Fully electric powered cars would be a huge step in the right direction. The technology is getting there. A lot of research has been done on reducing Methane levels from ruminant cattle. It all helps. Scientists flying about the world has no effect on CO₂ levels so I wouldn't worry about that. COP2 was actually Carbon negative. You can go live in a cave. No need for anyone else too. Walking is good for your health. It will not effect CO₂ levels though.

Your not really a 'can do' type personality are you TBL. Just kind of sit there and moan it's all too hard.

Wow, you must be psychic to deduce my personality on the basis of a few posts. Regardless, they could have had all electric cars donkey's years ago, but they didn't and they won't because the people that can do something about it are bought and sold by big oil. Read about the Seven Sisters.

For all the waffle that the supposed scientists spout, NOTHING is being done that will make a DIFFERENCE. A few windmills will do nothing to counteract the billions of poor people in poor countries using carbon. Till you can get the peasants in third world countries to use electricity made by non carbon means nothing will change the trend.

The only technology that is currently available that would make a difference is nuclear, and most countries won't use it. Even Japan is going to oil produced electricity.

It's not even as though this is new. I have newspaper cuttings from the 1980s about global warming.

I come on threads like this because those that waffle on about GW/ CC without suggesting solutions are just moaning, and I like to point out the error in their reasoning.

[up2u2]

Well put. Humans are having a massive impact on the environment. Deforestation and burning of fossil fuels are 2 biggies. I remember flying over the Andes a few years ago and seeing in amazement how much of the mountainsides in these remote regions had been totally cleared. Unreal.

Interesting article:

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/aug/12/humans-have-already-used-up-2015s-supply-of-earths-resources-analysis

True. Humans are a pestilential plague on the planet, but it hasn't been proven they cause climate change.

The only thing that would make a real difference would be to eliminate all humans- but how would that be accomplished? It is my belief that Gaia has decided to remove the human parasites by various means. The Zika virus would seem to be a start in that direction. Otherwise, humans will multiply to the point that there are no other significant life forms on the planet and we survive by eating seaweed as all the land is occupied by people and all the fish have been eaten or died of pollution .

Humans indirectly cause Climate Change. By burning fossil fuels they emit CO₂ into the atmosphere. Excess CO₂ greenhouse gas causes the Earth to heat up. As the Earth warms Climates Shift, Polar Caps melt, sea levels rise, extreme weather events develop. Pretty simple stuff. That basic science has been around for some 120 years.

The primal Greek goddess of earth is the cause. Well there you go.

No intention of getting into detail, but it's actually the sun that heats the planet, not CO2. It has not been proven that the rise in CO2 caused by mankind has caused climate change as there is a case to be made that increased CO2 is caused by rising heat levels caused by increasing sun heating, ergo rising CO2 levels are caused by the sun and not humans. There is far more CO2 and methane trapped in the surface than ever humans produced- it is released by rising temperatures.

You are absolutely incorrect. This is fundamental basic science. Total Solar Irradiation (TSI) runs on a 11 year cycle. It is relatively constant. It has no effect on fluctuating heating of the planet. In fact over the last 10 years TSI has been in a downward cycle yet Earth's temperatures have set all time records. Also without greenhouse gasses humans would not exist. The Earth would in fact be frozen. Greenhouse gasses trap heat elevating Earth's Global mean temperatures by 30^OC / 86^OF. The CO₂ added to the atmosphere by the burning of fossil fuels is easily quantifiable. The Carbon atom in the CO₂ generated by the burning of fossil fuels is a different isotope to naturally occurring CO₂. Rising temperatures are the result of excess CO₂ greenhouse gasses being released into the atmosphere from pumping mining oil / coal stored deep underground and burning it. If you applied your analogy to the icy Methane Hydrate slurries in the Arctic you would actually be accurate. If we continue raising the Global Temperatures eventually the Methane Hydrates will begin to warm and be released. Once that occurs it is game over. Methane gas is ten times more potent greenhouse gas than CO₂. Once that is released very little will survive. The Earth would go through another Mass Extinction similar to the Permian Mass Extinction 250 million years ago. 98% of all living creatures were wiped out.

[up2u2]

Methane gas is ten times more potent greenhouse gas than CO2.

Wrong.

Pound for pound, the comparative impact of CH4 on climate change is more than 25 times greater than CO2 over a 100-year period. - US Environmental Protection Agency

If we continue raising the Global Temperatures eventually the Methane Hydrates will begin to warm and be released. Once that occurs it is game over.

Wrong.

Catastrophic, widespread dissociation of methane gas hydrates will not be triggered by continued climate warming at contemporary rates (0.2ºC per decade; IPCC 2007) over timescales of a few hundred years - Nature magazine, Ruppel, C. D. (2011) Methane Hydrates and Contemporary Climate Change.

- -

It is very unlikely that methane from clathrates will undergo catastrophic release during the 21st century (high confidence). - Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), AR5 Working Group 1 Technical Summary

I have no idea where you are getting your climate "information" from, but it seems to be rather of the Janet & John variety, reminiscent of the silly Skeptical Science site.

Excellent RB you are actually referring to established science. The US EPA comment is interesting. It is possible if you calculate the impact of Methane over a 100 year period it is 25 times more potent than CO₂. They may be adding in total environmental impacts. Although a Methane molecule is 10 times more greenhouse active than a molecule of CO₂ it only has a stability span of 10 years whereas a CO₂ molecule has a stability span of 30 years. Have a look at the methodology of the EPA statement as to how they arrive at 25 times more potent over 100 years. Particularly in respect of Methane having a much shorter lifespan than CO₂. See what you come up with.

Quoting an IPCC report. Wow. On current research and data the IPCC the likelihood of Methane Hydrates in the Arctic being totally released during the 21st Century is unlikely. +6^OC is the danger point there and more dependent on Ocean temperatures and currents than Surface temperatures. As we are aiming to limit surface temperatures to +2^OC hopefully those Hydrates will remain stable indefinitely. At the moment there are conflicting surveys on Arctic Methane clathrates. Some say they are stable some say they are much more than we thought. At the moment we are okay for this century if that changes with more research then we may be in trouble.

I tend not to focus on catastrophic Methane release. That is pretty much the end point of humans and most life forms on Earth. As Earth progresses through +2 +3 +4 +5 +6^OC there wont be much left of human civilisations to even worry about Methane.

I don't think I read about Arctic Methane slurry on Skeptical Science. I think it was a few Research Paper Abstracts.

[derator01]

If you are going to quote online sources, please provide a link and abide by fair use regulations:

14) You will not post any copyrighted material except as fair use laws apply (as in the case of news articles). Please only post a link, the headline and the first three sentences.